But What About 1 Timothy 2:12?

Does Paul Want Women To Be Silent?

Navigating 1 Timothy 2:12: A Case for Humble Theology in Gender Discussions

The Case for Humility in Theological Discourse

Before we get into the technical details of 1 Timothy 2:12, I'd love for us to think through the place of personal convictions and what the implications should be for the family of God. This passage has become something of a theological battleground, with passionate believers on both sides claiming their interpretation as the definitive understanding of God's will for ministry. This kind of approach can quickly become combative. But what if we approached this differently?

My Personal Conviction:

• Egalitarians love Jesus and are part of the family of God.

• Complementarians love Jesus and are part of the family of God.

Any discussion, debate, or rhetoric that leaves you feeling either of these groups doesn't belong in the family, or leaves you thinking negatively about them, isn't healthy. Honestly, it's also probably pretty harmful and an invitation for a heart check.

I've observed over years of ministry and theological study that our theological circles often reinforce our existing perspectives rather than challenging us to grow. We read books by authors who agree with us, attend conferences where speakers affirm our positions, and fellowship with believers who share our theological framework. While this is not inherently harmful, it can be if done in isolation. In other words, it can create echo chambers where opposing views become increasingly foreign and even threatening.

Don't let anyone convince you that either group doesn't belong in the family. Is it messy? Yes. But that's okay because God can handle it, and the Holy Spirit can lead us into unity and harmony without having to lose our convictions. We usually get into trouble when we start thinking in extremes or absolutes.

The Problem with "Either/Or" Thinking

So this is just a gentle reminder to avoid "either/or extremes" when doing theology, especially when doing theology in areas that are complicated and in terms of theological triage fall in secondary and tertiary categories. Additionally, let's not assume just because someone is FOR something they are therefore implicitly AGAINST another.

Example: I love Marvel. This does not demand that I must "hate" DC. Or my belief that MJ is the GOAT doesn't necessitate that I think LeBron is a bum.

Think about it in practical terms: is it really plausible that godly, Spirit-filled scholars who have dedicated their lives to understanding Scripture have simply missed something obvious? Is it likely that nearly half of thoughtful Christian interpreters throughout history have been willfully blind to clear biblical teaching? Or might it be that these passages contain complexities that don't easily resolve into our preferred systematic frameworks which creates room for nuance, dialogue, and dare I say even disagreement.

A little more technical but important to this discussion: It's possible for someone to believe that in 1 Timothy 2:12, the Greek word αὐθεντέω (authentein/authority) deals with hostility or ruling/acting in a domineering fashion, which means women can teach and preach.

The restriction Paul is placing isn't on their ability to teach/preach but on the manner in which they do so.

This same person can ALSO be convicted that the role of elder/pastor is reserved for men. This doesn't have to be a contradiction. The two positions can live together in tension, but still together in harmony.

(source: Rebecca Skaggs, 1, 2 Peter and Jude through the Centuries, ed. John Sawyer et al., Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Hoboken, NJ; West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2020), 126.)

Examining 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context

Now let's take a closer look at the verse that has generated so much discussion:

12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:12, CSB)

12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ

A couple of things to consider about how to interpret this passage. We need to deal with both issues—the cultural context and the creation references—to develop a holistic understanding. The approach I want to appeal to here is a biblical theological approach.

1. Cultural Context of Ephesus

I think clues to handling this text lie in the historical, social, and cultural context of Ephesus (the location and recipients of this letter). When Timothy received this letter, he was pastoring in a city dominated by the worship of Artemis, whose massive temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Ephesus was home to rampant Gnosticism which held to the belief of salvation through esoteric knowledge. A belief in a divine supreme being and a general rejection and disdain for the material world. The Temple of Artemis has historically been associated with a prostitution cult and other practices involving women, jewelry, and activities that clearly associated practitioners with the cult of Artemis. Archaeological evidence confirms that the cult was primarily led by female priestesses who held significant authority in the city's religious life.¹

This cultural backdrop matters tremendously for our interpretation. The women in the Ephesian church were likely recent converts from paganism, bringing with them cultural assumptions and practices that needed correction. Some scholars suggest that these new female converts, empowered by their newfound freedom in Christ, may have been asserting themselves in ways that disrupted the church's worship and teaching.

Part of what is happening is Paul is saying: don't participate in activities that could cause confusion about your allegiance to Jesus. In other words, be set apart. Also, there were specific issues of discipline where there was a usurping of authority and leadership based on a false teaching that said Eve was greater than Adam.

We see evidence of this false teaching when Paul specifically mentions in 1 Timothy 2:14 that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." This appears to be countering a specific heresy circulating in Ephesus that elevated Eve above Adam in spiritual authority or knowledge.

Paul is responding to these cultural issues. Thus, our interpretation should consider this immediate context as we attempt to develop an entire ministry methodology and doctrine based on these few verses.

Also, the Greek word αὐθεντέω (authentein/authority) is not easily interpreted, and its meaning has been widely debated. This word appears only once in the entire New Testament (what scholars call a hapax legomenon), making its precise meaning difficult to establish with certainty. Standard lexicons define the verb as "to control in a domineering manner." Does it mean to exercise authoritative rule over men? Or does it mean to refrain from hostile and domineering language and actions that usurp the leadership of men?

I think based on the context and the issues present, the interpretive decision of "domineering/hostility" may be appropriate. Additionally, it could be a hendiadys (a figure of speech where two words connected by "and" express a single idea), but honestly, I am not completely sure.

When we look at how this word was used in other Greek literature from the period, we find it often carried connotations of domineering, usurping, or even violent authority—not simply leadership in general. If Paul had wanted to simply prohibit women from exercising any leadership over men, he had several more common Greek words available that he uses elsewhere when discussing church leadership.

2. Creation References and Their Meaning

What do we do with the fact that right after verse 12, the next verse deals with Adam and Eve? Doesn't this indicate that we are going to a creation argument? Let's consider this.

The creation argument takes you to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-2, who function as vice-regents under the idea of a suzerain in an Ancient Near Eastern context that Genesis is situated in. Also, the Hebrew language surrounding male and female is about oneness, not hierarchical rule (the majority of OT scholars agree on this).

In Genesis 1:27-28, God creates male and female in His image and gives them both the mandate to exercise dominion over creation. There is a profound equality in their shared identity as image-bearers and their shared responsibility as stewards of creation. This is further reinforced in Genesis 2:23 when Adam declares the woman to be "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"—a declaration of essential sameness and intimate connection.

So then the next place to turn is Genesis 3:16 with the "rule" and "desire" language. But here is the larger hermeneutical question/issue: the rest of Scripture points to Genesis 1:27 and 2:23-24 as normative in gender relationships, NOT 3:16. Jesus affirms this in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6—this is about functional oneness, NOT a hierarchical twoness.

When Jesus addresses marriage and divorce, He points back to Genesis 1-2 as the original design for human relationships, not to the post-fall dynamics of Genesis 3.

This suggests that the subordination described in Genesis 3:16 is a description of the fallen world's distortion of the relationship, not a prescription for how it should be.

In regard to "desire," this Hebrew word (teshuqa) is only found 2 other times in the OT (Genesis 4:7; Song of Songs 7:10). Intimacy, not hierarchical rule, is what links these words together. The same word used to describe Eve's "desire" for her husband is used in Song of Songs to describe the lover's desire for his beloved—a context of mutual affection, not control or dominance.

In regard to the "rule" word, the Hebrew is (mashal) and is the regular word for reign or rule and does NOT demand a negative context. If negativity was in mind, the Hebrew would include an adjective (e.g., "harsh"), but that is absent, or the more aggrieved term (kabash, "to subdue") would have been used. But it's not.

So, as you can see from this very "brief" summary, what some may say is so "clear" is actually not quite so. It requires consideration, humility, and a sense of charity. I do believe that the creation argument still places Adam in a place of leadership to care for, lead, and love Eve—which he ultimately fails at. The simple rational I have for this is that when God calls out, he calls Adam to account for the transgression in Eden.² This failure is redemptively reversed through Jesus, who loves, leads, and offers in self-sacrifice His own life for the church, His bride.

Women in Leadership Throughout Scripture

When we step back from this one passage and look at the broader biblical narrative, we find numerous examples of women in leadership roles:

• Deborah served as both prophet and judge over all Israel (Judges 4-5)

• Huldah the prophetess authenticated Scripture and advised King Josiah (2 Kings 22:14-20)

• Priscilla taught Apollos, an eloquent preacher, the way of God "more accurately" (Acts 18:26)

• Phoebe was a deacon of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1-2)

• Junia was "outstanding among the apostles" (Romans 16:7)

In fact, Paul himself affirms women praying and prophesying in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5), which is difficult to reconcile with an absolute prohibition on women teaching and speaking. Additionally, in Galatians 3:28, Paul declares that in Christ there is "neither male nor female," suggesting that at some level, gender distinctions are transcended in the new covenant community.

These biblical examples don't settle the debate, but they do complicate simplistic readings that would exclude women from all teaching or leadership roles in the church.

Finding Balance: My Personal Position

After wrestling with these texts for years, this is where I still personally hold to a "complementarian" position, where I think that elder/pastor in the local church should be a position held by men. However, all other positions, including minister/deacon, should be available to men and women. Further, women should be able to preach/teach and lead men in almost every area under the leadership of elder/pastor (men).

This position maintains what I see as the biblical pattern of male spiritual headship while creating space for women to exercise their God-given gifts of teaching, leadership, and ministry. It acknowledges that the Spirit distributes gifts as He wills, not according to gender (1 Corinthians 12:11), while also honoring what I understand to be the biblical framework for church leadership.

I know many thoughtful believers who will disagree with me here—some believing I've gone too far, others believing I haven't gone far enough. That's okay. We can disagree on these matters while maintaining fellowship and respect, recognizing that we all see "through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

The Way Forward: Humble Theology in Practice

Here are some practical suggestions for engaging this issue with humility and grace:

1. Read widely from different perspectives. Don't limit yourself to authors who confirm your existing views. Listen carefully to the strongest arguments from the other side.

2. Focus on what unites rather than divides. Both complementarians and egalitarians affirm the authority of Scripture, the equality of men and women in Christ, and the importance of using our gifts to build up the church.

3. Recognize the complexity. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't have centuries of debate among faithful believers. Be willing to say "I'm not entirely sure" about some aspects of these questions.

4. Hold your position with humility. Remember that many godly, intelligent believers who love Jesus and take Scripture seriously have come to different conclusions than you have.

5. Take a charitable posture. When someone disagrees with you, assume the best about their motives and commitment to Scripture rather than questioning their faith or intelligence.

6. Keep the main thing the main thing. While these issues are important, they should not overshadow our primary calling to make disciples and share the gospel.

Resources for Further Study/Reading

I don't have this all together. I have so much more to learn, and there are NT and OT scholars and theologians who could easily pick apart and dismantle my thoughts here. But I don't think the goal is to prove someone wrong or right but to find even an ounce of truth in an opposite argument to create humility and enable us to better understand our own conviction. This is #HumbleTheology.

Here are some theologians and scholars that you can study and learn more from:

If you have not, I would recommend reading:

• Egalitarian - equal ministry opportunity for both genders (represented by Linda L. Belleville and Craig S. Keener)

• Complementarian - men and women fill distinctive ministry roles (represented by Craig L. Blomberg, Nijay Gupta (Tell Her Story), and Thomas R. Schreiner)

Additionally, I'd recommend:

• "Two Views on Women in Ministry" edited by James R. Beck – This volume presents both complementarian and egalitarian perspectives in a respectful dialogue.³

• "Paul and Gender" by Cynthia Long Westfall – A detailed examination of Paul's writings on gender from a historical-cultural perspective.

• "Discovering Biblical Equality" edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis – A thorough presentation of the egalitarian position.

You may disagree after reading them (I disagree with aspects of both of their conclusions), but I'm better for engaging with the theological nuances that are necessary. And ultimately, that's what #HumbleTheology is all about—not winning arguments, but growing together in our understanding of God's truth, even when that means acknowledging the limits of our understanding and the complexities of Scripture.

May we approach these discussions with grace, patience, and above all, love for one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

---

For a primer on my approach to doing theology, through the posture of Humility check out my book, “The Hidden Peace.”

1. The view of prostitute cult and Artemis being a deity of fertility has come under scrutiny in modern scholarship. Some of the best work on this has been done by Sandra Glahn who points out the impact of magic in the cult and hows Artemis to be a deity associated with midwife duties, of which I am convinced.

2. This is very simplistic, but is also one of the primary reasons I still hold to a complementarian position.

3. Much of the research in this post stemmed from this book.